Fiat currency is somewhat similar to the computer software mentioned in the article. Not necessarily in the duplicity, but in the resource allocation. The resources used to create the money are worth far less than the money itself--And in many cases are only bits of digital information. At this point it has a use, but it is basically only a simulacrum of anything of value.

Businesses are not investing because demand is low. Demand is low because people have no money. People have no money because they have no jobs. People have no jobs because businesses are not investing.

Businesses are not investing because demand is low. Demand is low because people have no money. People have no money because...

You have to think bigger. By the time you could implement something like what you suggest, we will have automated out the need for another 20-20% of the workforce. What we need is a new model for income and economics in the twenty first century that does not require the classical forms of employment. In 100+ years, we will only need about 5-10% of the population to operate everything. This not only challenges the idea of financial security through employment, but the ways in which we will create the next 1%ers. The chances of another Occupy type movement in the next 100 years, I feel it unlikely. We need to think long, hard, and now, about the next century. The next decade is already here.

When you are guaranteed a job, it does not matter how many jobs you automate. Everyone will always be guaranteed work. If we allocated income based on effort and automated half the jobs we currently do with our existing technology, as explained in the post I linked to, we would be able to pay everyone from $110 to $440 per hour. So people can work as little as 10 hours per week and get paid $57k per year which is enough to live very well.

So many people will choose to work very little hours. But the people who do the very important work like science will never run out of work to do no matter how advanced our automation gets in the near future.

It is ridiculous to think about what to do about next century. How about we work on the problems that actually affect the people that are alive? And the way to do that is to replace capitalism's system of allocating income based on bargaining power with democracy's system of allocating income based on hard work.

Capitalism is Free Enterprise ... like the black market ... or the mafia ... it's going to exist whether legal or not... as long as we use or require money.... THAT only answer is to eliminate money ....

Capitalism is not free enterprise. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and those private individuals deciding how to allocate income.

I don't think we should stop free enterprise. People should be able to start any company they want. We should have a decentralized system where companies are individually run.

However, we should allocate the income all those companies produce democratically. That just means we would allocate income so that differences in income are limited by law to just what is necessary to get people to do difficult work and to get people to give their maximum effort. This would guarantee everyone a job and raise the minimum income to $115k which would put an end to the primary problem in the world: lack of income. How that system would work is explained in this post.

We cannot eliminate money. Without money, we have no way of measuring expenses. How would you measure cost? We also would have no way of rationing goods and services which would mean people would demand far, far, far more than we can produce so there is no way to allocate things fairly. And we would also have no way of paying people to work which would cause a massive shortage in labor.

The problem in this world is not money. Money is just a measuring tool. The problem is lack of money.

So the reason why we are where we are at today is because the people back in the late 1800s didn't think about how to solve our problems? That is insanity.

Well, you can work on the problems people will face in 100+ years, I will work on the problems people are facing today.

The problem people are faced with today is lack of income. And people lack income because a very small minority use their bargaining power to unfairly take so much of the available income - income that they have not earned and don't deserve - that there is simply not enough income left over to pay everyone else.

The solution to the problem of lack of income is to allocate income democratically. We would allocate income so that differences in income are limited by law to just what is necessary to get people to do difficult work and to get people to give their maximum effort. This would guarantee everyone a job and raise the minimum income to $115k which would put an end to the problem of lack of income as explained in this post.

I'm sorry, your position that our problems were the responsibility of the people of the 1800s and our responsibility is to solve the problems of the people who are going to be around 100 years from today is ridiculous.

If you think automation is a problem, don't you think we should fix the problem for people who are alive today instead of for the people who will be alive in 100 years?

And when you allocate income based on hard work, instead of based on bargaining power, you will raise the minimum wage to $115k which will make everyone wealthy. And when you make everyone wealthy, you will in fact solve nearly every problem.

By planning for the future, you would be beginning the improvements now, then creating a road map for prosperity over the next century. This makes every following year and decade better than the previous. Bill Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall in order to create short term prosperity regardless of the long term and here we are, in the future. In fact, the Glass Steagall act was repealed 19 years ago. That is about 20% of the timeline I have proposed. My how time flies. Bill Clinton is not responsible for the economic calamity we face now, but with a little forethought he could have prevented it as there were those warning him of the potential consequences much the same way that people like me are again warning people like you of the consequences should future planning be neglected. Your need to allocate hard-line responsibility or lack there of and think short term is again, very child like. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are in your early 20s. If you are any older than that you should shut off the computer and stop participating because you simply don't have the maturity and wisdom to discuss issues of real importance.

And by the time you find a solution, there will be 100 more problems preventing any progress because you refused to plan ahead. You have obviously never managed Anything. I'm not here to convince you, I'm just pointing out that you are ill equipped for this type of thing.

I never said I want to replace money with voting. You should get better informed before you make ignorant comments. This post explains how a democratic economic system works.

Democracy is a Greek word. But it is not a Greek word for "voting" or "mob rule" or "majority wins". It is Greek for "people power". It means power rests with everyone equally. It is a society based on equal political power and equal freedom.

Since everything you do in society requires money, your income determines how much political power you have and determines how much freedom you have to live the way you want.

So in order to have democracy, a society where power rests with everyone equally, income must rest with everyone equally. But income is also used as an incentive to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.

So the only way to have a society that is democratic and the only way to also have an economy that works well, is to have a system where differences in income are limited by law to just what is necessary to get people to do difficult work and to get people to give their maximum effort.

Capitalism is geared to produce inequality. The more money you have, the more money you can make. There is no limit on how much more income you can make than others. And mostly everyone, especially the rich, are trying to make as much money as possible. That produces inequality!!
If we had a system where differences in income were limited by law, then the problem of inequality would in fact be solved. This isn't rocket science.

And under your plan, there is no incentive to excel. Your plan seeks to give economic equality by law, that is socialism DU and that is a fact you cannot escape. You cannot legislate morality, jackass. Thousands of years of systems, law, rules, economic models, governance models; all of them had experienced and still experience inequality. Your goddamn book only education isn't worth shit, GROW UP! All you fks do is regurgitate what you learned in books and how you can rework someone elses ideas, none of you have an original thought between you. It's people like you that restrict progress and claim to fame on the genius of others.

My plan is the same plan socialists have been advocating for 100+ years: to each according to their labor. That means the harder you work, the more you make. So there is incentive to excel. It enables you to earn more money.

If you take the time to read my comments, you would have read that income is allocated where differences in income are limited to whatever is necessary to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.

So income is allocated in a way that ensures it remains as an effective incentive.

.

"Your plan seeks to give economic equality by law, that is socialism and that is a fact you cannot escape"

As I explained in my last comment, socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. I advocate socialism as a means of achieving democracy. I do not just advocate socialism because socialism can also be used to create a very undemocratic society.

.

"You cannot legislate morality"

I advocate legislating the allocation of income, not morality. Morality is already legislated. You cannot murder, rape, steal or defraud. They are immoral and against the law.

.

"Thousands of years of systems..all of them had experienced and still experience inequality"

The system I advocate also has economic inequality. So I will carry on that tradition.

.

"Your goddamn book only education isn't worth shit, GROW UP! All you fks do is regurgitate what you learned in books and how you can rework someone elses ideas, none of you have an original thought between you."

You define growing up as rejecting education and books and cursing like a 6-year old in a forum. I do not. Neither does the rest of the grown up world. You may want to rethink your philosophy.

.

"It's people like you that restrict progress"

A society where everyone is wealthy as a right and you get paid at least $115k for working 20 hours is significant progress.

A "system of government by the whole population" means the whole population has equal political power. Since your income determines how much political power you have, the only way to have equal political power is to have equal income.

At this point that is true.

There is nothing about capitalism that is geared toward inequality. Inequality is the result of choices made by a society and inequality cannot be solved by differing system or ridged rules or even your lofty philosophical separation from reality. It can only be solved when society decides it is no longer acceptable.

Capitalism is geared to produce inequality. The more money you have, the more money you can make. There is no limit on how much more income you can make than others. And mostly everyone, especially the rich, are trying to make as much money as possible. That produces inequality!!

If we had a system where differences in income were limited by law, then the problem of inequality would in fact be solved. This isn't rocket science.

In order to raise $5.6 trillion in taxes, you would need to levy a 37.3% tax on all income in addition to the taxes everyone is already paying.

Everyone who makes less than $48k would get some net benefit from that. But such a high tax would make the effective tax rate more than 50% for higher income earners. That would kill investment which would kill the economy.

Plus, something like that is pretty radical. You might as well go all the way and just allocate income democratically. This would enable you to guarantee everyone a job, raise the minimum wage to $115k and reduce the work week to 20 hours which is a much better deal than getting an extra couple of thousand bucks.

1.A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

2.A state governed in such a way.

What you are calling democracy is socialism and has nothing to do with democracy no matter what blinders you choose to wear. Yet another reworked version of socialism like the Zeitgeist kids and some others. Why so afraid to call it what it is? I am for socialism and capitalism and democracy. You however think a hammer is the appropriate tool so long as you call it a screwdriver. Save your Latin debate references, it doesn't make you look smart, it's just pretentious.

A "system of government by the whole population" means the whole population has equal political power. Since your income determines how much political power you have, the only way to have equal political power is to have equal income.

As socialists will tell you, the only way to have a democratic society is through socialism. A capitalist society where some people have as much as 50,000 times more income than others which means some people have as much as 50,000 times more freedom and political power than others is not democratic.

Capitalism, which maximizes inequality, is the opposite of democracy.

Socialism is just the public ownership of the means of production. So I advocate socialism only as a means of achieving democracy. I do not just advocate socialism because socialism can also be used to create a very undemocratic society.

An excellent post. Unfortunately, most of the people remaining on here are insiders from the left and/or right and as we both know, those people aren't interested in the truth, even if they do play the populism tune.

Because businesses, small and large, keep being attacked by the government with more taxes, regulations and uncertainty. How can a small business invest or hire when they don't know what the new health care bill or other legislation is going to cost them per employee next year. Congress is still writing the rules. All the tax breaks run out at the end of this year and all the new regulations go into effect next year and 2014. There's too much uncertainty over the future. They're not going to spend money or hire until they know what the government is going to take from them. Any business needs to know the bottom line to stay in business. They don't want to go bankrupt. The rules keep changing and the government keeps getting in the way of growth.